DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 14A provides for expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 80IA on Gross total income instead of on business income.” 3. The brief facts as taken from AY 2013-14 are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the AY 2013-14 on 30/11/2013 admitting

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

200 consists of the assessment order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act for the AY 2009-10 by the DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore wherein entity’s income of Rs. 491,38,96,684/- is accepted and further addition is also made. (vii) Page No.202 consists of the CIN No. of the entity viz., U13209KA2001PTC029707

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

200 consists of the assessment order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act for the AY 2009-10 by the DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore wherein entity’s income of Rs. 491,38,96,684/- is accepted and further addition is also made. (vii) Page No.202 consists of the CIN No. of the entity viz., U13209KA2001PTC029707

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

68 of the Act. 9. Aggrieved by such deletion of the additions, the Revenue is before us in these appeals contending that the primary onus to prove the shareholders creditworthiness lies on the assessee in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Private Limited

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

68 of the Act. 9. Aggrieved by such deletion of the additions, the Revenue is before us in these appeals contending that the primary onus to prove the shareholders creditworthiness lies on the assessee in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Private Limited

ANIRUDH VENKATA RAGI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

200/- after claiming exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Learned Assessing Officer on verification, found that the assessee purchased 1,50,000 shares of M/s. Life Line Drugs & Pharma Ltd., at Rs. 6/- per share and sold the same at Rs. 283/- per share in a span of 19 months

GANGADHAR AGARWAL,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

200 | 1708800 |\n| 10.26.26 |\n| Deepak | Nil | Nil | 1200 | Nil | 604000 |\n| MOP |\n| Kribbco | Nil | Nil | 20 | Nil | 14000 |\n| MOP |\n| ZIL | Nil | Nil | 3700 | 1570 | 5004821 |\n| 10.32.16 |\nWithout opening stock and\npurchases, sales and\nclosing stock are appearing\nin Trading Account thereby\n9166 quintals of purchases\nare not shown which is\nunexplained\nExpenditure u/s.69C\nWithout purchases

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68, 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came into our consideration from ground Nos. 2 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal is validity of the impugned assessment order as being barred